When a group of people thinks that it would not be able to win a battle or bring about change through ballots they sometimes seek refuge in bullets. They indulge in all sorts of unlawful acts and crimes.
Thus terrorism is the handiwork of the frustrated minority group having defeated mentality. But if any group is confident of majority support it need not rely on illegal means. Instead it elicits support by democratic means and the mass falls behind it.
Terrorists are thus always a small unpopular group, who take up arms to win any war by hook or crook. This appeared to be the phenomenon, which was gripping a section of the Muslim world till the turn of the century. In the same way in the later part of the 20th century there were similar ultra-Left groups, who would indulge in all sorts of illegal acts in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America. With the fall of Communist regime in Moscow and several East European countries the Red terror groups became weak and they ultimately died a natural death.
Well into 21st century things seem to be somewhat changing. Now there is no ultra-Communist movement yet a couple of anti-American governments came to power in Latin America.
In Middle East there is now no small disgruntled lot opposing the Ameican, Israeli or Saudi line. Instead a huge majority now thinks that it is time to stand up and be counted against the tyranny, against dictatorship and against neo-imperialist forces. They do not need to take up arms but boldly take to the streets with full hope that one day or the other they are bound to succeed. They are men and women having victorious mentality fully confident of their goal. Thus there is no need to take up arms.
They adopt legal means of protest, even though the respective rulers try to crush them. The dictators had to finally bow out of office or hold talks with the teeming mass. These men and women would not indulge in any act of violence, even if provoked by the army. This had happened in Tunisia and Egypt and several other Arab countries.
The problem with the West is that it feels much more comfortable in dealing with terrorist groups. They can be easily isolated as no civilized society like them. The West can get rid of them by bombing their hideouts. Terrorists can be cornered and vanquished. This has happened in the past and is happening even now. The so-called threat of global Islamic terrorism has almost vanished.
But the mass upheaval against the western-backed titular heads are spreading fast. This is posing a new type of challenge for the western imperialist powers. Those taking to the streets of Arab cities, raising slogans against the American-backed regimes cannot be pounded by the NATO bombers. The work to crush them has been left to the respective rulers themselves.
Caught in a dilemma the US and western allies are fast drawing fresh strategies to overcome this peaceful challenge. They are well aware of the maxim that it is easy to win a war than peace.
Libya, situated between Egypt and Tunisia, provided them one such opportunity to interfere. This is simply because here the opponents also took up arms and perhaps the mass appeal of those opposing the regime was not so widespread. The upheaval lacked the leadership quality. Thus a deadlock-like situation emerged. The West got full opportunity to poke its nose.
More than a fortnight after the elimination of Osama Bin Laden it is now appearing in the media that the United States have been keeping an eye on him and monitoring him for the last few months. If is it so, then is it that there is some meticulous planning in eliminating him on May 2 and not much earlier.
It is now amply clear that the United States was not too much keen to get rid of Osama Bin Laden. Rather, it seems, he was removed from the scene to provoke the terrorists to retaliate globally. If the situation aggravates once again it would suit the western imperialist powers. Past experience suggests that nothing like that could be ruled out.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect BH’s editorial policy.